Page:Nicolae Iorga - My American lectures.djvu/92



Excellent histories on Byzantine art have been written, from the comprehensive work of Charles Diehl to the successful attempt by Louis Brehier to write a new one. Their authors have succeeded, with much skill, in presenting an uninterupted narrative of its development in all its aspects. Nevertheless, long periods are wholly unknown, partly owing to the destruction of documents, to fierce conquest or internal disturbance, as when iconoclasts fought against iconodoules, and partly because whole provinces, particularly in Asia—though also in Europe—were never explored. All gaps have been filled in and the impression given is of a connected tale, but in spite of this ability, which has now become a tradition in the compilation of such works, capital problem remain unsolved and an endeavour will be made here to set them at their true values.

The first is the hard one of origins themselves.

Is isIt is [sic] admitted that Byzantine society created none of the elements which form this rich and brilliant synthesis of art. Nothing is owed to new inspirations; no particular note of a new race is struck; there is no influence of a special milieu, no discovery due to the existence of an artist of genius, all we can trace in the development of Byzantine civilization being the presence of able writers and perfect technicians, all seeking to give greater proportions to 88